Liberals such as CNN’s Jack Cafferty (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/cafferty-obama-race-a-factor/) and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (http://iowaindependent.com/5627/sebelius-obamas-race-may-be-a-factor) – each of whom has leveled a charge of racism against anyone not voting for Sen. Barack Obama – are not the only ones who have elevated the race card in the 2008 presidential election.
Several “black conservatives†– despite polar political differences between themselves and Obama – have considered voting for Obama because he is black. The list (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/14/black-conservatives-weigh-voting-for-obama/) includes former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts, “The Cosby Show†actor Joseph C. Phillips, and conservative commentator Armstrong Williams who in a recent Washington Times column all but volunteered his services as a campaign advisor for Obama. (Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell says he is presently uncertain about whom he will vote for.)
Emphasizing racial identification rather than moral consideration is especially remarkable coming from conservatives. Such behavior would be deafeningly decried as white racism if done in favor of a white candidate.
Words from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream†speech comprise the modern sentiment against prejudice and discrimination, but it was God Himself who first taught against judgment based on external characteristics, of which skin pigmentation – “race†– is one.
In 1 Samuel 8 (NKJV), the nation of Israel rejected God’s theocratic leadership and asked the prophet-priest-judge Samuel to give them a human king so they could be “like all the nations†around them.Â
God, omnisciently knowing what kind of leader the people wanted, selected Saul, whom the Bible twice describes according to his physical impressiveness.
In 1 Samuel 9:2, Saul is described as “a choice and handsome young man. There was not a more handsome person than he among the children of Israel. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people.†In 10:23, the future king is again similarly described: “So they ran and brought [Saul] from [where he was hiding]; and when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.â€
Despite starting out well and some early military success, the stately Saul soon manifested an inward character that was incongruous with his outward impressiveness. Consequently, God removed him from the throne and sent Samuel on a search for Saul’s successor.
But even Samuel himself was not immune to judgment based on biology. As the prophet went to the house of Jesse (father of the next king, David) in 1 Samuel 16, Samuel too became caught up in the human inclination to link outward characteristics with inward goodness.
Samuel assumed that the tall, handsome, and stately Eliab would be God’s choice to succeed Saul. But God’s instruction was clear in 1 Samuel 16:7: “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have [rejected] him. For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.’â€
Ultimately, God chose David, who – although also described in 1 Samuel 16:12 as “ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking†– would possess the added distinction of being called (also twice) “a man after [God’s] own heart†(1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22).
Physical features can sometimes correlate with moral goodness. The Bible’s Queen Esther is an example of a woman of extraordinary physical beauty but whose use by God was because of her Godliness – for which her physical features were merely a vehicle to secure the attention of the Persian king.
But consider the apostle Paul, whom some church traditions hold was short, bald, bow-legged, and whose eyebrows met in the middle of his forehead. And Jesus Himself, about whom the prophet Isaiah declared concerning His physical appearance (Isaiah 53:2): “He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty [lit. “appearanceâ€] that we should desire Him.†The unparalleled accomplishments of such men were rooted not in innate biology, but in their Godly morality.
Barack Obama’s consistent liberal Democrat positions on a spectrum of issues are neither reflective of Biblical morality nor a political basis for any conservative alignment whatsoever with him.
James T. Harris, a Milwaukee radio talk show host, summed it up best when he said: “[Barack Obama and I] are of the same generation. He’s African American, and I’m an American of African descent. We both have lovely wives and beautiful children. Other than that, we’ve got nothing in common. I hope he loses every state.â€
To support Obama merely because of his race – irrespective of fundamental ideological differences – smacks of exactly what blacks fought and died for to escape from whites having the same prejudiced mentality. It weakens the credibility of those whose conservatism lasts only until it causes them to collide with a “brotha’,†even a diametrically polar one.
For those interested in a truly color blind society, content of character must trump the color of the skin.
Dr. Walter Jones is a trained physician, award-winning educator, Bible teacher, and former state and national pro-family public policy analyst. His Web site and blog can be found at www.thebibleandtheculture.com.
3 users commented in " Race ’08: Blacks, the Bible, and Barack – Part II "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackPlain and simple, Obama won the Democratic National Primary not because of the color of his skin but rather his abilites Democrats would like in a President.
It is and example of how Senator Obama got past the race card against him or if he as you suggest used it to his advantage.
I give the voters more credit, and would not insult there intellegence by suggesting that he is using it (race card) for his advantage.
Cherry picking comments out of speechs and the national press hardly paints a clear picture that the race card is a factor in this election. We havent gone there but I believe the despiration of Republicans and not Democrats will inflame this issue at the 11th hour.
If Blacks would like to change to a better party other then the ones they have chosen in this case the Democratic Party so be it.
Over the decades the Republican Party has done little comparitivly speaking to that of Democrats. If the contrary is true,
why is it that any Black Democrats do not switch to the Republican Party?
The sheer numbers are revealing in itself, and Republican policies are shutting out the middle and lower class, which also includes African-Americans.
Martin Luther King would be proud today of Senator Obama. King’s hard work and many others is a shining example of where he is today.
African-Americans are doing the right thing who are choosing Obama and it is because of the Democratic Party on the issues!
Also…
It is funny that everyone is making such a big deal that Obama is getting the black vote in the mid to upper 90 percent. What you may fail to realize is that every democratic nominee or present in recent history has received at last 90 percent of the black vote…Bill Clinton’s black support was even in the mid 90’s…So Obama is going to get 5 more percentage points than the previous white candidates and you are all hollering racism.
African-Americans only make up less than 15 percent of the population so if every black voted for Obama just because of the color of his skin and every racist white person didnt vote for him becuause he is African-American he wouldnt have a chance if race was the only factor involved
Let’s stop whining about the 15 percent of this country who are African Americans who will support Obama because of the color of his skin but rather talk about the 20 percent of white Americas who AREN’T going to vote for him because he is black!!!!!
The question we should be asking is if JC Watts was running against a white democrat how would the polls look? It’s true that democrats get the black vote by a fair margin most of the time, however it’s a phenomenon that reinforcing and doesn’t necessarily mean that the democrat party gives more favorable treatment to their community. In otherwords, since most African Americans are democrats most of the African American politicians are also democrat by heritage. Heritage is hard to break.
Leave A Reply